Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Ed
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on
the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the
fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins
sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers.

I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html
from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by
a patent lawsuit from this guy at
http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent
6626134.

I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS!
He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine
resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent.
Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but
the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics.

What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of
cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow
American out of business.

This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply.
I have no affiliation – I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here.
Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood.

eferg
  #2   Report Post  
Ian Stirling
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

Ed wrote:
I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on
the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the
fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins
sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers.


How many years, do you have a picture of one before 2000.


I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html
from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by
a patent lawsuit from this guy at
http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent
6626134.


For how long has he been doing this? 4 years?

I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS!
He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine
resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent.
Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but
the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics.

What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of
cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow
American out of business.

This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply.
I have no affiliation ? I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here.
Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood.

eferg

  #3   Report Post  
mark
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

I was thinking of patenting the sidewalk. If someone pushed *that* patent
through, maybe it'd be enough to stop this kinda crap.


"Ed" wrote in message
om...
I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on
the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the
fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins
sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers.

I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html
from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by
a patent lawsuit from this guy at
http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent
6626134.

I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS!
He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine
resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent.
Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but
the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics.

What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of
cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow
American out of business.

This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply.
I have no affiliation - I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here.
Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood.

eferg



  #4   Report Post  
Ian Stirling
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

mark wrote:
I was thinking of patenting the sidewalk. If someone pushed *that* patent
through, maybe it'd be enough to stop this kinda crap.


On the US patents site, I note they are looking for patent examiners.

  #5   Report Post  
Jim Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

Ed wrote:

I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on
the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the
fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins
sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers.

I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html
from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by
a patent lawsuit from this guy at
http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent
6626134.

I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS!
He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine
resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent.
Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but
the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics.

What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of
cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow
American out of business.

This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply.
I have no affiliation – I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here.
Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood.


Sounds like the temperature drop issue was raised
to evade the requirement that the patent not be
obvious to one skilled in the arts.

Good luck.



  #6   Report Post  
Leo Lichtman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit


"Jim Stewart" wrote: (clip) Sounds like the temperature drop issue was
raised to evade the requirement that the patent not be obvious to one
skilled in the arts.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think that would be a valid way of obtaining a patent on an idea
that is already in the public domain. But, unfortunately, part of the game
is intimidation. Very often people who are in the right cave in because of
fear. Or they don't have the resources to go through a lengthy litigation,
even one they could win. I have an acquaintance who successfully resisted
the threat of an infringement suit, and wound up with a written admission
from the other party that they were in the wrong. He also wound up with
about $50,000 in attorney's fees.


  #7   Report Post  
Vince Iorio
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

I forget the exact numbers, but they were something like 75% of new
examiners don't last 12 months. Very high turn over rate. I know 2
engineers who tried it, and neither stayed with it long term.

Who would have ever thought that there was a government job that was not
"easy".

Vince

Ian Stirling wrote:

mark wrote:


I was thinking of patenting the sidewalk. If someone pushed *that* patent
through, maybe it'd be enough to stop this kinda crap.



On the US patents site, I note they are looking for patent examiners.




  #8   Report Post  
Don Foreman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

The essence of a patent is in the claims, usually claim 1 because
subesequent claims are usually subordinate to claim 1.

This patent specifies "Intagliated" concavities. Intagliated means
"engraved" according to www.dictionary.com.

If your guy or his attorney can find a way to argue that his process
is "milling" or "machining" rather than "intagliation" or "engraving",
he'd have a defense.

The USPTO in recent years has granted patent on damn near anything,
including conflicting patents, let 'em sort it out in court. That
may explain the high turnover of examiners: pressure to do what they
know damned well is wrong or at least slipshod.

On 31 Jul 2004 15:34:24 -0700, (Ed) wrote:

I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on
the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the
fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins
sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers.

I came across this site
http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html
from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by
a patent lawsuit from this guy at
http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent
6626134.

I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS!
He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine
resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent.
Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but
the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics.

What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of
cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow
American out of business.

This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply.
I have no affiliation – I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here.
Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood.

eferg


  #9   Report Post  
william_b_noble
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

it is not too difficult to refute a patent if you have prior art, according
to patent attourneys I've talked to. If this was "common", then there will
be lots of chopper mags going back years showing it - that's prior art and
the patent will be found invalid.


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
The essence of a patent is in the claims, usually claim 1 because
subesequent claims are usually subordinate to claim 1.

This patent specifies "Intagliated" concavities. Intagliated means
"engraved" according to www.dictionary.com.

If your guy or his attorney can find a way to argue that his process
is "milling" or "machining" rather than "intagliation" or "engraving",
he'd have a defense.

The USPTO in recent years has granted patent on damn near anything,
including conflicting patents, let 'em sort it out in court. That
may explain the high turnover of examiners: pressure to do what they
know damned well is wrong or at least slipshod.

On 31 Jul 2004 15:34:24 -0700, (Ed) wrote:

I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on
the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the
fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins
sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers.

I came across this site
http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html
from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by
a patent lawsuit from this guy at
http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent
6626134.

I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS!
He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine
resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent.
Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but
the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics.

What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of
cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow
American out of business.

This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply.
I have no affiliation - I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here.
Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood.

eferg




  #10   Report Post  
Roger Martin
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

I'm not overly surprised. US patent and trade mark attorneys troll the world
looking for common usage words, then enable a company to patent or register
the trademark in the USA. Then issue writs against businesses using those
words in advertising or in their business names.

Two come to my mind just recently - "Uggboots " which is a common name for a
sheepskin boot made by several hundred businesses in Australia. All have
recently received "cease, desist and payup" demands from the US company
which has trade marked in the US the common Australian name for that type of
boot.

The other was a beach wear company based in Sydney "Absolut Beach Wear" they
received an injunction issued by a court in New York requiring them to stop
using the name "Absolut", hand over the website they had, and release the
business name which had been registered in Australia to the US based
attorneys acting on behalf of "Absolut Vodka". They had been tried and found
guilty in absentia and did not have the financial backing to fight the
matter.

--
http://cgi6.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI...sort=3&rows=50




  #11   Report Post  
Ecnerwal
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

In article ,
"william_b_noble" wrote:

it is not too difficult to refute a patent if you have prior art, according
to patent attourneys I've talked to. If this was "common", then there will
be lots of chopper mags going back years showing it - that's prior art and
the patent will be found invalid.


Might not be "too difficult" _IF_ you can pay the fricking lawyer bill.
Which is the whole point of this game. Perhaps the law should be changed
to "the patent will be found invalid and the company holding it will
have to foot the bill for whoever proves that". Perhaps the examiner who
granted it should get his/her pay docked, too.

And at the end of the process, you can continue doing a common process
that never should have been patented in the first place; so can everyone
else on the planet, and they are not contributing to your lawyer bills.

Likewise, if you actually have a valid patentable idea, it's only as
good as your ability to pay lawyers to harass people who make it without
paying you, so once again the process is skewed to the size of your
lawyer fund, not the validity of your idea. Good luck stopping the
factories in China, where IP is a laughingstock, regardless of the size
of your lawyer fund.

I've sat on several apparently patentable ideas becasue there was no way
for me to actually make any money with them without having a lot of
money to patent them and then defend them.

It's a lovely concept, but the execution, at present, stinks.

--
Cats, Coffee, Chocolate...vices to live by
  #12   Report Post  
Sunworshipper
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

On 31 Jul 2004 15:34:24 -0700, (Ed) wrote:

I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on
the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the
fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins
sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers.

I came across this site
http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html
from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by
a patent lawsuit from this guy at
http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent
6626134.

I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS!
He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine
resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent.
Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but
the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics.

What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of
cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow
American out of business.

This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply.
I have no affiliation – I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here.
Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood.

eferg


What exactly is "diamond cut". According to the claim it has to have
two longitudinal cuts and cross hatching . Is that what diamond cut
is? Seems weak , I'd check it out real good and send him an LOL
letter. Like go for it , I have a good 20 people that can testify this
is prior art. Oh, it just says that it is on the cooling fin , nothing
about the design has to be for cooling. The first claim is its
envelope. For some reason I can't get the drawings. I'd also get a
copy of all the prior art he sited and read their first claims, ect.
Got to go.
  #13   Report Post  
mark
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

Maybe it's not easy standing in the way of money



"Vince Iorio" wrote in message
...
I forget the exact numbers, but they were something like 75% of new
examiners don't last 12 months. Very high turn over rate. I know 2
engineers who tried it, and neither stayed with it long term.

Who would have ever thought that there was a government job that was not
"easy".

Vince

Ian Stirling wrote:

mark wrote:


I was thinking of patenting the sidewalk. If someone pushed *that*

patent
through, maybe it'd be enough to stop this kinda crap.



On the US patents site, I note they are looking for patent examiners.






  #14   Report Post  
Old Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:07:50 GMT, Ecnerwal
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I have always thought that it was not a lovely concept, although a
nice one, and apparently well-meant. I also have a few ideas, that
have come up, but even from years ago, it is so hard and expensive to
patent something, and apprently so easy to lose the value of that
patent, tat it's just not worth it.

But what is the alternative? The State foots the lawyer bill? Rather
than civil suits, the challenge is investigated by statutory
authority, as the patent was?

I've sat on several apparently patentable ideas becasue there was no way
for me to actually make any money with them without having a lot of
money to patent them and then defend them.

It's a lovely concept, but the execution, at present, stinks.


************************************************** ***
It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it
rammed down our throats.
  #15   Report Post  
Martin H. Eastburn
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

I went through the fast track patent - had to educate the examiner.
The examiners for the most part are college 'kids' part time.
(heard this on the History channel on a show ...)
I managed to get mine completed ( it was a long 70 pages of items)
and it is approved in Japan and the European (Hague).

Sometimes one gets a good one and then later another type.

Mine was ok in the end.

Martin

Don Foreman wrote:

The essence of a patent is in the claims, usually claim 1 because
subesequent claims are usually subordinate to claim 1.

This patent specifies "Intagliated" concavities. Intagliated means
"engraved" according to www.dictionary.com.

If your guy or his attorney can find a way to argue that his process
is "milling" or "machining" rather than "intagliation" or "engraving",
he'd have a defense.

The USPTO in recent years has granted patent on damn near anything,
including conflicting patents, let 'em sort it out in court. That
may explain the high turnover of examiners: pressure to do what they
know damned well is wrong or at least slipshod.

On 31 Jul 2004 15:34:24 -0700, (Ed) wrote:


I own a motorcycle and was researching how to make "diamond cuts" on
the engine fins. Diamond cuts are simply decorative cuts made in the
fin edges, using a burr by hand or with CNC, to make the engine fins
sparkle. Its been done for years by chopper customizers.

I came across this site
http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html

from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by


a patent lawsuit from this guy at
http://ironhorsetrading.com/Diamond_Heads.htm who holds patent
6626134.

I read the patent on the government web site and what a bunch of BS!
He claims to have measured the temperature drop in the engine
resulting from the diamond cuts, and that is the basis of his patent.
Yes, there may be some minor measurable temperature difference, but
the real reason for the cuts is simply aesthetics.

What makes me so mad is that some a**hole patents the process of
cutting little chunks out of engine fins, then tries to put a fellow
American out of business.

This guy needs our support. I've written to him and got a nice reply.
I have no affiliation – I'm just PO'ed at what is going on here.
Maybe I should patent the process of making holes in metal and wood.

eferg





--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder


  #16   Report Post  
MKloepster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

SNIP
I came across this site http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html

from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by


a patent lawsuit from this guy at

SNIP

Seems to me you could get the patent number, get the images and descriptions
from the PTO website, and do it for yourself for free! I really dislike the
patent conept anyway--how can you own an idea? I say let all who wish to
manufacture an item compete in the market. The current system just damages
consumers by encouraging patent holders to gouge. Of course the pro patent
people say no new products will be developed without patent protection, but
that's utter B.S. If there's a market, somebody, somewhere will be willing to
supply it. If you need examples, just look at all of recorded history before
the patent concept--things somehow still managed to get invented....
  #17   Report Post  
Peter H.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit



A
HREF="http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html"http://www.vabiker.net/h
tml/article86.html/A

"Since the early 1970s I have done, what is now known as €˜diamond
cutting, as one of the services I offered to custom bikes builders ..."


Diamond cutting has been used far before the "early 1970s", more particularly
in the production of precision rotating magnetic media, used in what are now
called hard disk drives, but were originally called direct access storage
devices (DASD).

It is "prior art" ... by several decades.

Ex-Cello Corp made the diamond cutting machines which IBM used since the 1950s
for this purpose.

  #18   Report Post  
Old Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

On 02 Aug 2004 05:31:52 GMT, (MKloepster)
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Although the patents system is not good, is it the _concept_ or the
implementation that is flawed?

There must have been _some_ people protected by patents. There have
been many cases where market forces alone _still_ would have resulted
in forces of _other_ kinds (such as brute, econominc etc) in some poor
sod who spent 20 years developing an idea having it taken off him
without patent protection.

I don't think there is anything wrong with owning an idea. What about
plays, books and music?

What _is_ there to protect a person from struggling to spend a long
time developing something up to saleable level, or at least
manufacture level, and then somebody else with more noise and money
simply taking it over?

Seems to me you could get the patent number, get the images and descriptions
from the PTO website, and do it for yourself for free! I really dislike the
patent conept anyway--how can you own an idea? I say let all who wish to
manufacture an item compete in the market. The current system just damages
consumers by encouraging patent holders to gouge. Of course the pro patent
people say no new products will be developed without patent protection, but
that's utter B.S. If there's a market, somebody, somewhere will be willing to
supply it. If you need examples, just look at all of recorded history before
the patent concept--things somehow still managed to get invented....


************************************************** ***
It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it
rammed down our throats.
  #19   Report Post  
Trevor Jones
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

"Peter H." wrote:

Diamond cutting has been used far before the "early 1970s", more particularly
in the production of precision rotating magnetic media, used in what are now
called hard disk drives, but were originally called direct access storage
devices (DASD).

It is "prior art" ... by several decades.

Ex-Cello Corp made the diamond cutting machines which IBM used since the 1950s
for this purpose.


Peter,

It may be worth noting here that the diamond cutting referred to, is
more like the flashy cuts applied to jewellery, rather than cutting
"with" diamond or diamonds.

Cheers
Trevor Jones
  #20   Report Post  
Don Foreman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

The idea behind patents is to enable one who invests the effort and
money to develop an idea to have exclusive use of it and fairly
profit from his labor and investment for a limited time. This is
granted in exchange for "teaching" the idea in the patent so it's
available to all after the period of exclusivity has expired.
Inventors are thus encouraged to innovate and disclose for the
long-term public benefit by having a chance to exclusively profit from
their work for a fixed period.

The problem isn't with the concept but with the implementation. If
the USPTO did a rigorous and concientious job of examining,
likelihood of successful challenge or infrigement would be low. If
the likelihood of winning such attempts were low, people would be
more reluctant to invest in legal services to abuse the system.

I believe this is still the case in Europe.



On 02 Aug 2004 05:31:52 GMT, (MKloepster)
wrote:

SNIP
I came across this site
http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html

from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by

a patent lawsuit from this guy at

SNIP

Seems to me you could get the patent number, get the images and descriptions
from the PTO website, and do it for yourself for free! I really dislike the
patent conept anyway--how can you own an idea? I say let all who wish to
manufacture an item compete in the market. The current system just damages
consumers by encouraging patent holders to gouge. Of course the pro patent
people say no new products will be developed without patent protection, but
that's utter B.S. If there's a market, somebody, somewhere will be willing to
supply it. If you need examples, just look at all of recorded history before
the patent concept--things somehow still managed to get invented....




  #21   Report Post  
MKloepster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

The idea behind patents is to enable one who invests the effort and
money to develop an idea to have exclusive use of it and fairly
profit from his labor and investment for a limited time. This is
granted in exchange for "teaching" the idea in the patent so it's
available to all after the period of exclusivity has expired.
Inventors are thus encouraged to innovate and disclose for the
long-term public benefit by having a chance to exclusively profit from
their work for a fixed period.


Sure, in theory, but the distinction between allowing someone to "fairly
profit" and granting a license to gouge is more than a little subjective.
Again, people were innovating long before the advent of intellectual property
as a concept--they entered the market and took their chances while others were
free to improve upon the design. If you absolutely insist on injecting
government into the process, why not simply legislate a "reasonable" (i.e.,
low) maximum licensing duty and allow all willing to pay the license to the
inventor to produce the product? This would still be artificial and
anticompetetive, but it would also still grant some exclusive profit to
inventors and, I think, decrease overal cost and time to market for most
products and services.


  #22   Report Post  
MKloepster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT: Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

What _is_ there to protect a person from struggling to spend a long
time developing something up to saleable level, or at least
manufacture level, and then somebody else with more noise and money
simply taking it over?


There isn't any. So what? Isn't the greater good better served by having
innovations quickly brought to market by those who can do so at a competetive
rate? Remember, people innovated long before the USPTO and its foreign
equivalents came into existence.
  #23   Report Post  
Sunworshipper
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 10:30:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

The idea behind patents is to enable one who invests the effort and
money to develop an idea to have exclusive use of it and fairly
profit from his labor and investment for a limited time. This is
granted in exchange for "teaching" the idea in the patent so it's
available to all after the period of exclusivity has expired.
Inventors are thus encouraged to innovate and disclose for the
long-term public benefit by having a chance to exclusively profit from
their work for a fixed period.

The problem isn't with the concept but with the implementation. If
the USPTO did a rigorous and concientious job of examining,
likelihood of successful challenge or infrigement would be low. If
the likelihood of winning such attempts were low, people would be
more reluctant to invest in legal services to abuse the system.


Well said and should be foremost in mind when criticizing patents.
Found out the Tiff program only works with the browser you got it
from. Now I can see the drawings and went through half of them. Still
seems weak from what is implied of prior art and more like a design
patent. If its seems serious I would get hard copies of the patent and
all he cited and read them. The claim is not very clear to me without
knowing the art and reading all else necessary. IIRC he goes back to
the late 40's with examples of prior art. The guy worried about it
probably does the same type of thing , but not exactly the same way
and shouldn't be worried about it , but ya got to check it out if your
getting letters.



His patent is bogus or don't do it that way. Send the prior art to the
holder and the PTO. Hell, you almost have to be an attorney to cross
the street now days. They just might cancel that puppy.

I see that applications are available now which means they did change
a lot of laws for the new world order so showing prior art wouldn't be
good for the patent holder. *maybe*


I believe this is still the case in Europe.



On 02 Aug 2004 05:31:52 GMT, (MKloepster)
wrote:

SNIP
I came across this site
http://www.vabiker.net/html/article86.html

from a guy who has offered this machining service. He has been hit by

a patent lawsuit from this guy at

SNIP

Seems to me you could get the patent number, get the images and descriptions
from the PTO website, and do it for yourself for free! I really dislike the
patent conept anyway--how can you own an idea? I say let all who wish to
manufacture an item compete in the market. The current system just damages
consumers by encouraging patent holders to gouge. Of course the pro patent
people say no new products will be developed without patent protection, but
that's utter B.S. If there's a market, somebody, somewhere will be willing to
supply it. If you need examples, just look at all of recorded history before
the patent concept--things somehow still managed to get invented....


  #24   Report Post  
Don Foreman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

On 02 Aug 2004 16:48:43 GMT, (MKloepster)
wrote:


Sure, in theory, but the distinction between allowing someone to "fairly
profit" and granting a license to gouge is more than a little subjective.


Gov't can't decide what "fair" profit is. The market decides that.
It's not gouging, because anyone is free to not use it just as before
the invention. The gouge is if others compete with me by using
(stealing) an idea that I invested the time and money to develop.
I need to recoup my investment or repay loans, so I'd be at a
competitive disadvantage with my own idea.

Again, people were innovating long before the advent of intellectual property
as a concept--they entered the market and took their chances while others were
free to improve upon the design.


They still are, after I've had a fair chance to recoup my investment.
Meanwhile, they're always free to invent something better than I did.

If you absolutely insist on injecting
government into the process, why not simply legislate a "reasonable" (i.e.,
low) maximum licensing duty and allow all willing to pay the license to the
inventor to produce the product? This would still be artificial and
anticompetetive, but it would also still grant some exclusive profit to
inventors and, I think, decrease overal cost and time to market for most
products and services.


I don't insist in injecting government at all, as in proposing
legislation of what someone other than the market deems "reasonable".
If you don't want to pay what I ask to license my idea, you are free
to not use it and pay me nothing. You should not be free to steal
the fruits of my labor by abusing the legal system. You can have it
free when the patent runs out.

I wonder how much of the software you're using is pirated (stolen)
rather than legal licensed copies.....

Let's not confuse the public good with the public greed. Inventors
are part of the public too. If you remove temporary proprietary
advantage then things won't get better because there's no point in
investing to make things better, only to make the same things cheaper.

  #25   Report Post  
mark
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT: Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

rate? Remember, people innovated long before the USPTO and its foreign
equivalents came into existence.


And so... now we know how the USPTO came about





  #26   Report Post  
Gunluvver2
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

The first year after the issue date of any USA patent anyone who can prove that
the patent was issued improperly can file an objection to that patent. If you
have proof that this process was used before the "application date" of the
issued patent you can have that patent invalidated. Sending a copy of this
proof to the attorney of the patent holder and the USPTO office will probably
put a stop to any legal issues the small shop owner doing that work has. Make
sure to file the objections before the 1 year filing date has passed.
DL
  #27   Report Post  
Old Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT: Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:29:48 GMT, "mark" vaguely
proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

rate? Remember, people innovated long before the USPTO and its foreign
equivalents came into existence.


And so... now we know how the USPTO came about


I think I agree with what that last comment intended G.
************************************************** ***
It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it
rammed down our throats.
  #28   Report Post  
Old Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT: Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

On 02 Aug 2004 16:50:21 GMT, (MKloepster)
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

What _is_ there to protect a person from struggling to spend a long
time developing something up to saleable level, or at least
manufacture level, and then somebody else with more noise and money
simply taking it over?


There isn't any. So what? Isn't the greater good better served by having
innovations quickly brought to market by those who can do so at a competetive
rate? Remember, people innovated long before the USPTO and its foreign
equivalents came into existence.


hmmmm....no problems with a US invention / development being ripped
off by China? Not because there was some agreement, but "because they
can". Read a few other messages around here from guys losing jobs, if
you are looking only at consumerism.

Where is the greater good if somebody invents something, gets taken
for a ride, and had 20 other ideas, but falls in a heap? Or what if
they see somebody else get taken, and never start to publicise _any_
ideas they may have?

You have addressed and belligerently dealt with only one aspect of
what I was trying to say.

I admitted the patent system is flawed.

I do not agree that it _encourages_ patentors to gouge the buyer. It
_forces_ them to!

But the _idea_ has merit.

And I still challenge you on the ownership of ideas. IF you have had
one, and successfully marketed it, and are happy with the results,
_without_ using the Patent system, then I move back and let you take
the stand.

Having said that, I again say the idea is not flawed; the system is. I
have had ideas, as have many others here. I have (a) backed away from
the sheer cost and complication of the patent system (b) been
convinced that it will not protect me anyway.

You want greater good, then we need a public patent system, accessible
without $15000 legal and lost time costs.
************************************************** ***
It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it
rammed down our throats.
  #29   Report Post  
Old Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

On 02 Aug 2004 16:48:43 GMT, (MKloepster)
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Sure, in theory, but the distinction between allowing someone to "fairly
profit" and granting a license to gouge is more than a little subjective.


Any protection system will allow somebody to profit unfairly, if
people are willing to pay. But free-for-all markets will hurt somebody
who has spent time developing.

Again, people were innovating long before the advent of intellectual property
as a concept--they entered the market and took their chances while others were
free to improve upon the design.


But a lot of that went on before there was such availability of
mass-production, and before we had such rapid transmission of
information. The Patent idea came into being because it became needed.
I would imagine there are court cases and battles that brought it to
life.

If you absolutely insist on injecting
government into the process, why not simply legislate a "reasonable" (i.e.,
low) maximum licensing duty and allow all willing to pay the license to the
inventor to produce the product? This would still be artificial and
anticompetetive, but it would also still grant some exclusive profit to
inventors and, I think, decrease overal cost and time to market for most
products and services.


I agree with you that there are markets out there that are gouging
under protection, and maybe there _is_ a need for price regulation.
Don, you say that the matket should decide and people simply do not
buy. What about medicines? They are probably the most fearful, the
most innovative and the most gouged area. People do not feel that they
have a choice.

How can an agreed license fee be anticompetitive? It is, as you say, a
good working idea for a system, guaranteeing income for the developer,
and encouraging them to move on to other things while tyhe market
sorts out who makes the previous products.

There is one small niggle. Don't you need some system to prove that
you _deserve_ that license fee?

************************************************** ***
It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it
rammed down our throats.
  #30   Report Post  
Jim Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

Old Nick wrote:
On 02 Aug 2004 16:48:43 GMT, (MKloepster)
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


Sure, in theory, but the distinction between allowing someone to "fairly
profit" and granting a license to gouge is more than a little subjective.



Any protection system will allow somebody to profit unfairly, if
people are willing to pay. But free-for-all markets will hurt somebody
who has spent time developing.


Again, people were innovating long before the advent of intellectual property
as a concept--they entered the market and took their chances while others were
free to improve upon the design.



But a lot of that went on before there was such availability of
mass-production, and before we had such rapid transmission of
information. The Patent idea came into being because it became needed.
I would imagine there are court cases and battles that brought it to
life.


If you absolutely insist on injecting
government into the process, why not simply legislate a "reasonable" (i.e.,
low) maximum licensing duty and allow all willing to pay the license to the
inventor to produce the product? This would still be artificial and
anticompetetive, but it would also still grant some exclusive profit to
inventors and, I think, decrease overal cost and time to market for most
products and services.



I agree with you that there are markets out there that are gouging
under protection, and maybe there _is_ a need for price regulation.
Don, you say that the matket should decide and people simply do not
buy. What about medicines? They are probably the most fearful, the
most innovative and the most gouged area. People do not feel that they
have a choice.

How can an agreed license fee be anticompetitive? It is, as you say, a
good working idea for a system, guaranteeing income for the developer,
and encouraging them to move on to other things while tyhe market
sorts out who makes the previous products.

There is one small niggle. Don't you need some system to prove that
you _deserve_ that license fee?


Nick,

One thing that I'd like to point out is that in the USA,
patents are a constitutional right. I don't know what the
situation is down under. As constitutionally established,
there's probably far less wiggle room for the courts to
muck with patents.



  #32   Report Post  
Lewis Hartswick
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT: Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

MKloepster wrote:
What _is_ there to protect a person from struggling to spend a long
time developing something up to saleable level, or at least
manufacture level, and then somebody else with more noise and money
simply taking it over?

There isn't any. So what? Isn't the greater good better served by having
innovations quickly brought to market by those who can do so at a competetive
rate? Remember, people innovated long before the USPTO and its foreign
equivalents came into existence.


That sort of smaks of the worst kind of socialism. The
"greatest good for the greatest number" and to hell with the
individual. :-(
...lew...

  #33   Report Post  
Old Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT: Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:02:38 GMT, Lewis Hartswick
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

There isn't any. So what? Isn't the greater good better served by having
innovations quickly brought to market by those who can do so at a competetive
rate? Remember, people innovated long before the USPTO and its foreign
equivalents came into existence.


That sort of smaks of the worst kind of socialism. The
"greatest good for the greatest number" and to hell with the
individual. :-(
...lew...


But could esaily result in the worst kind of capitalism, and in fact
outright war.....
************************************************** ***
It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it
rammed down our throats.
  #34   Report Post  
Old Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 19:17:11 -0700, Jim Stewart
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

But who pays? Are you saying that somebody with no money can still get
a patent? Serious question. Also. Do they have the right to free /
state representation should they need to litigate regarding that
patent?

I'm not aware of the constitutional situation regarding patents in Oz.
But I see Americans just as afraid of being ripped off as many other
places.

Nick,

One thing that I'd like to point out is that in the USA,
patents are a constitutional right. I don't know what the
situation is down under. As constitutionally established,
there's probably far less wiggle room for the courts to
muck with patents.


************************************************** ***
It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it
rammed down our throats.
  #35   Report Post  
Jim Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

Old Nick wrote:

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 19:17:11 -0700, Jim Stewart
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

But who pays? Are you saying that somebody with no money can still get
a patent?


No, just that patents are provided for in the constitution. The
constitution also provides for post offices but that doesn't
mean that the mail is free.

Serious question. Also. Do they have the right to free /
state representation should they need to litigate regarding that
patent?


I'm not a lawyer, not even an internet lawyer. I
don't know.

I'm not aware of the constitutional situation regarding patents in Oz.
But I see Americans just as afraid of being ripped off as many other
places.


No argument there.


Nick,

One thing that I'd like to point out is that in the USA,
patents are a constitutional right. I don't know what the
situation is down under. As constitutionally established,
there's probably far less wiggle room for the courts to
muck with patents.



************************************************** ***
It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it
rammed down our throats.




  #36   Report Post  
Old Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 16:08:03 -0700, Jim Stewart
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Old Nick wrote:

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 19:17:11 -0700, Jim Stewart
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

But who pays? Are you saying that somebody with no money can still get
a patent?


No, just that patents are provided for in the constitution. The
constitution also provides for post offices but that doesn't
mean that the mail is free.


No. But as far as I know the cost of mail is affordable to the average
Joe, and is regulated. It's also possible to send a package without a
lawyer to show you how! G


************************************************** ***
It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it
rammed down our throats.
  #37   Report Post  
Leo Lichtman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

I've got an idea. What if a patent attorney were willing to enter into an
agreement with the inventor on a contingency basis. They could agree to
process the patent, and defend it against future litigation in exchange for
a percentage of the profits.


  #38   Report Post  
Jim Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default Machinist hit with patent lawsuit

Leo Lichtman wrote:
I've got an idea. What if a patent attorney were willing to enter into an
agreement with the inventor on a contingency basis. They could agree to
process the patent, and defend it against future litigation in exchange for
a percentage of the profits.


I was involved with a hi-tech startup years ago
where our patent attorney took some stock (and
cash) in exchange for patent processing services.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fort Worth - Machinist class Rex B Metalworking 0 December 10th 03 09:02 PM
Dallas/Fort Worth Machinist Class Vernon Metalworking 1 December 9th 03 02:42 AM
The Machinist (suspense movie) \PrecisionMachinisT\ Metalworking 28 November 7th 03 11:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"